The Soderling mention actually makes a lot of sense. It´s amazing how these things fly below the radar, but if you look at it... Soderling came from a foot injury when playing Wimbledon. 3 weeks later he probably played one of the most powerfull perfomances i have ever seen on clay. The way he demolished Berdych and Ferrer was outstanding.

And then... he disappears.

Isn´t this suspicious? And i like Soderling, but this doesn´t add up.

I like Söderling too. But return after Bĺstad this year would really seem suspicious. There's one reason why some sportsmen have to be aside for two years.

No, I'm not accusing Söderling. But there are suspicions that ATP doesn't announce all doping cases. And that makes strange absenses look a bit suspicious.

Roger, like all of our modern greats, has great lungs, conditioning, speed which he keeps up over long matches and so on. Those who go on about how he is a "natural" (which all of these top guys are really in a sense) downplay this or perhaps even miss it entirely. He is rarely out of breath, rarely sweating profusely etc.

A suspicious and conspiracy minded individual could give all that a different reading than I would.

Federer shows absolutely no typical signs of someone using Peformance Enhancing Drugs. Tennis is an interesting case to investigate because it doesn't require extreme capabilities of any of the fundamental components of physical fitness (Strength, power, balance, agility, anaerobic/aerobic endurance, flexibility and coordination) except coordination which is not treatable directly via any PED. However, a variety of the components of motor fitness are required to become a tennis player, and to a greater extent when we're talking about Roger Federer, however, there is nothing truly remarkable about any of Roger Federer's physical characteristics.

Tennis isn't a sport that requires excessive amounts of aerobic endurance and that is why you will never see a tennis player post remarkable scores on any VO2 max nor Lactate Threshold test. Tennis players are good all-round athletes, but from simple observation (especially to the trained eye), you can analyse that there is nothing truly exceptional regarding tennis players (regarding CV End), and even top tennis players. Tennis players have the luxury of unpredictable sequences of play, breaks in between points and lengthy breaks every 2 games. It doesn't even take an athlete specialising in a sport which relies the majority of its physicality on aerobic endurance to be able to endure a tennis match. Take Squash players as a prime example. I am fully confident that even possibly the fittest man in our sport, Novak Djokovic, could not endure a 60 minute squash match, if he were to possess the ability necessary. The point being and to cut a long story short that there's such a thing as unnecessarily high levels of aerobic endurance and it would only take an either very lazy or a genetically less-abled individual to even consider using something like EPO or in the extreme cases (yes) Clen. Regarding the other components necessary, the same principle stands.

Despite Djokovic possessing great all-round fitness, the only truly stand-out component is his flexibility, something I believe can be trained, but something I also believe to be genetic in the case of Djokovic. I think there's many players out there who possess great levels of cardiovascular endurance (relative to tennis), take Kevin Anderson as a perfect example, but are unable to stand out from the crowd because they don't possess the other components necessary. In his case, he isn't agile enough and ability with the ball isn't there, also due to the fact he is far from agile enough. Djokovic is the target of accusations because he possesses all the physical traits which others do not and thus can showcase 6 hour displays of excellent all-round fitness in finals that others are certainly not capable of. In other words, others may be doping and exceeding Djokovic's VO2 max for example, but fly under the radar due to lack of ability elsewhere.

You mention conditioning (and vaguely), which is normally referenced toward one's body composition and physical characteristics, do I really need to explain why Federer shows absolutely no signs of PED's from this perspective?

Federer was once an athlete who possessed ideal components not because he was the fastest runner, nor the most agile, nor the most powerful, nor the most flexible, but because he had an excellent all-round base and more essentially a reading of the sport, he enabled himself to perform with exceptional efficiency. Over the years, due to the natural decrease in both physical fitness and motor fitness components (and some very noticeably more than others), he has declined overall. For the first time in his career, he showed real signs of physical vulnerability (and thus mental, of course). This is far from the typical signs of someone using performance enhancing drugs. I can assure you that there are legitimate reasons for Federer rarely seen "out of breath". 1. Players are rarely truly "out of breath" 2. He breathes just about as hard as anyone relative to the intensity of the point played. 3. Federer has always disguised his breathing by walking slowly with his head down and small, quick breaths (as opposed to Djokovic looking at the 60th row in the crowd whilst filling his lungs with air.

Nobody has any basis whatsoever to accuse Federer of doping. It is truly preposterous.

I find it funny how everyone has their reasons why their favourite should be exempted from suspicion.
Because of the lame ass doping controls there's no way to tell who's doping and who isn't. But noone, is above suspicion.

What is truly preposterous is that you would have us believe that Federer (and the other top players) are not incredible specimens in terms of their cardiovascular performance and conditioning.

Your squash example is quite silly; top squash players would also be gassed if they played tennis in this manner.

What I can see from this discussion is that a certain class of poster sees problems everywhere but with his favorite.

There is absolutely no reason to believe so, from an educated standpoint. Of course, in comparison to the general public, these men are exceptional in every way possible, but that doesn't mean that they are genetically superior.

It's really not. Outside of adaptation and ability, Squash players absolutely would not fail to adjust to a typical 3 hour plus tennis match. The only reason you could argue Squash players could not adapt to tennis is because of inferior strength, but the difference and training required is far from considerable enough to declare valid. Considering Peter Nicol had no problems mixing up 2 hour interval sessions followed by resistance based power circuits, I highly doubt it.

And you mention conditioning yet again, which is utterly dense. Federer is around 81kg and 15% BF, what is remarkable about that?

If you can't back up your nonsense, then I'd suggest you retreat back to berating members of the board constantly and talking about anything but tennis.

There is absolutely no reason to believe so, from an educated standpoint. Of course, in comparison to the general public, these men are exceptional in every way possible, but that doesn't mean that they are genetically superior.

It's really not. Outside of adaptation and ability, Squash players absolutely would not fail to adjust to a typical 3 hour plus tennis match. The only reason you could argue Squash players could not adapt to tennis is because of inferior strength, but the difference and training required is far from considerable enough to declare valid. Considering Peter Nicol had no problems mixing up 2 hour interval sessions followed by resistance based power circuits, I highly doubt it.

And you mention conditioning yet again, which is utterly dense. Federer is around 81kg and 15% BF, what is remarkable about that?

If you can't back up your nonsense, then I'd suggest you retreat back to berating members of the board constantly and talking about anything but tennis.

Though your tone doesn't warrant much of a reply, it's not Federer's muscle tone or percentage of body fat (which is listed where please?) which would be the target of performance enhancers obviously. At least it's obvious to anyone who has some knowledge of the sport. The squash example continues to be both silly and untrue for a variety of reasons so just let it go.

Conditioning regards one's ability to play vigorous points, games sets and matches and do it over nearly an entire year. If you don't understand how you could be aided in recovery time and endurance by PEDs while still appearing "normal" in terms of physique I will have to forward you journal articles far beyond the scope of this board.

As for backing up "nonsense" the only backing up you have done would be in the form of personal assertion and inappropriate analogy but nice try.

Though your tone doesn't warrant much of a reply, it's not Federer's muscle tone or percentage of body fat (which is listed where please?) which would be the target of performance enhancers obviously. At least it's obvious to anyone who has some knowledge of the sport. The squash example continues to be both silly and untrue for a variety of reasons so just let it go.

Conditioning regards one's ability to play vigorous points, games sets and matches and do it over nearly an entire year. If you don't understand how you could be aided in recovery time and endurance by PEDs while still appearing "normal" in terms of physique I will have to forward you journal articles far beyond the scope of this board.

As for backing up "nonsense" the only backing up you have done would be in the form of personal assertion and inappropriate analogy but nice try.

Anyone who follows bodybuilding and trains, who regularly has physical characteristics like weight and BF% taken will be able to give you an accurate measurement within 3kg/%. You've just perfectly demonstrated your ignorance in asking.

It's actually not, and the reason why it and the like are discussed in Sport and Exercise Science textbooks and journals for the past 15 years explain just why it's not. Surprised someone who is apparently so clued up on the subject would pick and choose one little segment of my post and declare it invalid, when it's more than valid.

I've already explained why it is unnecessary and thus far too much of a risk for any talented individual who could get by otherwise. I'm sorry, but someone who is at the very top of his sport, who does most things off court correctly, would in no way shape or form appear the way Roger Federer does, had he been ingesting PED agents for Endurance such as EPO.

The fact you suggest I read Journals in biochemistry or whatever is laughable, considering it's blatantly obvious from your referencing and terminology that you haven't picked up one in your life on this particular subject.

As I said, do what you do 'best', and leave the tennis to those who are genuinely interested. And by the way, your "tone", remark couldn't be any more ironic.

Anyone who follows bodybuilding and trains, who regularly has physical characteristics like weight and BF% taken will be able to give you an accurate measurement within 3kg/%. You've just perfectly demonstrated your ignorance in asking.

It's actually not, and the reason why it and the like are discussed in Sport and Exercise Science textbooks and journals for the past 15 years explain just why it's not. Surprised someone who is apparently so clued up on the subject would pick and choose one little segment of my post and declare it invalid, when it's more than valid.

I've already explained why it is unnecessary and thus far too much of a risk for any talented individual who could get by otherwise. I'm sorry, but someone who is at the very top of his sport, who does most things off court correctly, would in no way shape or form appear the way Roger Federer does, had he been ingesting PED agents for Endurance such as EPO.

The fact you suggest I read Journals in biochemistry or whatever is laughable, considering it's blatantly obvious from your referencing and terminology that you haven't picked up one in your life on this particular subject.

As I said, do what you do 'best', and leave the tennis to those who are genuinely interested. And by the way, your "tone", remark couldn't be any more ironic.

I'm afraid we are back to your same assertions about what a PED body "looks" like which again, is far off the mark. If you take a closer look at the topic (neither you nor I do this professionally) you would see how silly what you are writing is.

As for Federer's measurements, the published measurements on the ATP site are approximate and you haven't examined Federer. My very simple question refers to how you think you have come to have accurate data. Thank you for letting me know that in fact you have no data and merely wish to grandstand on an internet forum with your "bodybuilder" aficionado guesses.

Please don't posture as if you were an expert when you are in fact dressing up in play clothes.

A few other players have said the same thing, but the ATP always slaps them down fast :-) About a decade or so back they started to get strict on this, after lots of players had accused Agassi of doping.

Anyway, it's blindingly obvious doping will be rampant in tennis. You have it in all top level professional sports, it's even getting common in a lot of amateur stuff now. With tennis dopetesting almost non-existent, it's inevitable.

If you kept paying off corrupt doctors you set yourself up to be blackmailed for even more money and eventually the truth would leak out anyway. You'd have to pay big money and even then they could leak the information some years into the future.

What would you do then as a player? Kill them? This is the real world not a fantasy movie.